I have officially changed my views!

[Cruentus]

Some of you will be happy to hear this, others will be very sad. However, I have changed my views in regards to gun control.

I always believed in upholding our 2nd amendment rights, and the rights for citizens to carry what they want. Yet, I used to always think that people should have to be licensed to carry anything, just like we have a drivers license. You could swipe your gun license, and a data base would keep record of what arms you own, and even when, where, and what type of bullets you buy. THis way we could have more lienient gun laws as to what we could carry, they just would have to be registered. This way, we could identify people much easier if they commit a murder.

I have completely 180ed from this view, however. I now believe that we shouldn't even have gun licensing. Here is some of my reasoning (in order):

1. Historical precidence has been set. Other countries have required the license and registration in a similar fashion to what I proposed. Yet, they moved to using that licesne and registration to confiscating all firearms. THis is something we cannot have, and until I am confident that one thing won't lead to the other, I can't support registration and licensing.

2. Criminals don't register and license their arms, law abiding citicens do. All we are doing is regulating the law abiding citicens rather then the criminals.

I have other reasons, but I am out of time for my post.

Any thoughts on the matter?

 

[teej]

Paul,

Please consider researching and making an educated decision for yourself about joining the National Rifle Association. This organization has been informing the public to the views you concluded to for a very long time. Well before you were born even.

The NRA usually provides the information that you would need to verify their claims. In fact Paul, do some research on your own, and look into the crime rate in Australia since that counrty instituted their new gun bans several years ago.

The NRA might not be for you, but do the research yourself and come to your own conclusion as to whether to join or not.

All NRA members have known for a long time exactly, the reasons that caused you to change your mind.

Teej

 

[dearnis.com]

Always good when someone comes to their senses!

 

[koss]

you're right Paul,...one of those countries is Romania,where I came from!They have very restrictive laws for the gun owners and they are closely watch by the autorities!Did that stop the bad guys using their ilegal firearms?Not at all!The bad guys did not have guns before because they couldn't afford them ...but now with what's going on in Eastern Europe,they have and do use all kind of crazy stuff while the lawful gun owners are still under watchful eye of the government!Yugoslavia, before the war was a much safer place than Romania and guess what? there were way more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens than in Romania or any other country in Eastern Europe -not including the far east Russia of course,...so again, I think your conclusion is right!

 

[OULobo]

I'm glad to have more people come to "the dark side", but I'm even more glad to hear that it is really possible for some people to change their minds, either through debate or research. How am I supposed to stay a cynic when things like this happen.

 

[theletch1]

How am I supposed to stay a cynic when things like this happen.

Watch C-SPAN.

Paul, great to see that you've changed your mind. Even if you don't carry it's a bonus to know that you'd have the RIGHT to do so.

 

[Cruentus]

Hey, I am a very opinionated person who is not afraid to speak my mind; yet I firmly believe in taking full responsability for what I say, and I believe in keeping an open mind. Part of having an open mind, to me, is not being afraid to admit when I am wrong. I find that people trust what I say and believe more when I can honestly admit it at the times I am mistaken.

Having said that, this should be a lesson to all of us in support for gun rights. People who believe in some level of gun control are most likely not stupid, or ignorant, or flaming liberals. They just may be ill informed. Far too often both sides revert to more name calling and rhetoric, and nothing gets accomplished.

My belief in required licensing and registration was not illogical; it was just ill-informed. My thought was that licensing and registration would free up our rights a bit more to carry and own. However, by becoming more informed on the issue I realized that there is no check or balance here; in other words NO WAY to prevent the next step, conviscation of arms. Furthermore, we are regulating the law abiding citizens by doing this while the criminals who don't abide by the laws run free. And as much as my first reaction was to try to "argue" my way away from these points, historical precidence has been set. Registration has led to confiscation in other countries; and crime rates have gone up in these other countries where this occured. Registration wouldn't be a bad thing if we could somehow prevent these other effects from happening; and as it stand right now, we can't. So, the proof is in the pudding, and I cannot argue with that...I can only admit to being ill informed.

So, this should be a lesson. Many people who believe in proper registration might just need a little bit more information on the subject. Our jobs (for those of us who support the 2nd amendment), when it comes up, should be to inform. And we should inform in such a way where they don't feel "ignorant." And we should stay away from getting caught into the arguement trap where we are doing more name calling and rhetoric spewing then informing.

My 2 cents....thanks for listening guys.

:2pistols: :asian:

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by theletch1
Watch C-SPAN.

Paul, great to see that you've changed your mind. Even if you don't carry it's a bonus to know that you'd have the RIGHT to do so.

For the record, I do own a russian SKS, and I plan on getting a CCW and possibly getting a glock. I am looking at next year for this goal.

 

[Arthur]

Fantastic thread Paul! I really respect you for starting a thread to announce your change in opinion.

Its been interesting and valuable to me to watch and participate in the threads that lead up to this one, and its all a good reminder, that there is value in these forums beyond entertainment.

Thanks for posting, and I too welcome you to the "dark" side.

Arthur

 

[Seig]

While I believe in a lot of what the NRA is doing, in some respects, they are a bit rabid for my tastes. I would like to see a little more moderate group.

 

[Ceicei]

I'm glad you did your homework! You are to be commended for seeking information with an open mind.

- Ceicei

 

[Marvin]

Originally posted by PAUL
I plan on getting a CCW and possibly getting a glock. I am looking at next year for this goal.

Paul, look me up when you are ready to get that CCW! And whenever you want to test drive a Glock
Marvin

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by Marvin
Paul, look me up when you are ready to get that CCW! And when ever you want to test drive a glock
Marvin

Paul,

Let me know if yo cannot get a hold of Marvin. I have my ways to get a message to him .


HI Marvin, I still owe you a visit out to test drive myself.

 

[Marvin]

Originally posted by Rich Parsons
Paul,

Let me know if yo cannot get a hold of Marvin. I have my ways to get a message to him .


HI Marvin, I still owe you a visit out to test drive myself.

Yes I do!!!
What about this weekend?

 

[Marvin]

Rich, maybe not.
I don't think the Boss would like me going out with the boys on Valentines Day.

 

[KenpoTex]

First of all, WAY TO GO PAUL! it's always nice to see someone make the right decision. I think you made some valid points with regard to people's position on gun control. I feel that most of those who support gun control are merely ignorant of the true facts and if they would objectively look at the evidence that they would change their minds. Of course, this is just what the Brady bunch, and VPC and the other gun-grabbing groups like to capitalize on. They turn the issue into an emotional one to try to sway people because they know that the facts do not support their position.
Now to get on my soapbox a little:

Originally posted by Seig
While I believe in a lot of what the NRA is doing, in some respects, they are a bit rabid for my tastes. I would like to see a little more moderate group.

Seig, while I definately support your right to have your oppinion, I must say that I disagree. In my oppionion the NRA is not "rabid" or zealous enough. They are the most powerful lobbyist group in the nation but they do not use their power to its full potential. I also feel that they have taken the wrong direction with their message (probably to appear more moderate). What I mean by this is that they are always talking about how gun-control will reduce or eliminate the ability of the hunters and sportsmen to pursue their hobby. However, this is really NOT the issue. The second ammendment is not about the right to hunt or even the right to self-defense, these two rights were taken for granted when the founding fathers wrote the Bill of Rights. The 2nd Ammendment was put in place so that the people could keep and bear arms to resist a tyrannical government. based on this, the weapons that are actually protected by the bill of rights are military type weapons-the "so called" "assault weapons" that are the initial target of most anti-gun groups. I know this might sound a little extreme but think about it. If the 2nd ammendment only applies to single shot rifles and shotguns then the first ammendment only should apply to quill pens and hand-operated printing presses.

 

[Arthur]

If the 2nd ammendment only applies to single shot rifles and shotguns then the first ammendment only should apply to quill pens and hand-operated printing presses.

Sweet line! I'll be using tat in the future. Thanks Kenpotex.

Arthur

 

[KenpoTex]

I've gotten quite a bit of mileage off that one myself...usually after I bait the trap by playing devil's advocate and talking about how wiretaps or internet censorship should be legal accross the board.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Problem with the "sweet line," is, a) we're still talking pretty much the same old way, and the Bill actually only guarantees freedom of speech--which has generally been interpreted to mean speech in all its forms, including the freedom to advertise; b) ya needs to read the whole Amendment, including the part about the, "well-regulated militia." Huh, REGULATED. Wonder what they meant.


But hey, they will have to peel my Red Ryder BB gun from my cold, dead fingers.

 

[KenpoTex]

Allow me to clarify my little "statement." The implication should not be drawn that I don't feel the 1st Ammendment should cover modern technology. My point is that the same special-interest groups and politicians with personal agendas who spend their time seeking to eviscerate the 2nd ammendment are the same ones who would scream the loudest if the other ammendments were attacked. Although, they don't seem to have a problem forgeting about due-process or the restrictions on unreasonable searches and seizures when it comes to attacking gun owners.
Now on to other things...

ya needs to read the whole Amendment, including the part about the, "well-regulated militia." Huh, REGULATED. Wonder what they meant.

I'm not going to get into this one too much (I could go on all day) but that one little phrase ("well regulated militia") has been the subject of more debate and controversy than you can shake a stick at. If you read commentary from the "founding fathers" and the framers of the Constitution you will see that the militia was not the National Guard (as some would argue today), nor was it the military. The militia was every able-bodied male who could be counted on to fight if another country attempted to invade or if the government tried to force its will on the populace. I don't believe that anybody who is willing to objectively examine the original intent of the framers could deny their desire for this ammendment to protect and guarentee the right of the private, law-abiding citizen to possess firearms.
The next issue then becomes, what firearms should/shouldn't the people be allowed to possess? As I stated before, it is clear that the purpose of ensuring private ownership of firearms was/is to protect against enemies both foreign and domestic, therefore the logical progression of thought would dictate that the people should not be prohibited from owning weapons consistent with this purpose. In other words; rifles, handguns, and shot-guns similar to those used by the military.
Finally, these arguments should be unecessary due to that often forgotten little phrase "shall not be infringed." I'm not going to define the word "infringed" because I'm sure all of you have access to a dictionary.
Comments/Feedback are more than welcome,
Respectfully,
Matt